( 1 ) THIS is defendant No. 1 s application for striking out some portion of averments inplaintiff s replication, (filed by way of reply) to defendant No. 1 s amended written statement. The defendant claims that the said portion has been unauthorisedly added even after dismissal of plaintiff s application, being IA No. 10438/96 (under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC), seeking permission to incorporate the same averments in her plaint, which was not permitted as the plea ran counter to the plaintiff s stand, being the basis of the suit. It is also alleged that the amended replication is contradictory to the earlier replication. The portion sought to be struck off, set out in para 15 of the application, reads as follows:

"it is submitted that on Lala Narain Dutt s death the said property passed to his son and his widow in equal shares where the widow received a limited estate since Lala Narain Dutt expired prior to 1956. This limited estate in the widow s hands was converted to absolute property by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Lala Narain Dutt s widow Smt. Karam Devi expired intestate in the year 1964 and upon her death her absolute 50% share in the said property devolved by in